VRT vs WLDN Stock Comparison
Compare VRT and WLDN across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between VRT and WLDN?
WLDN leads the current stock comparison as Willdan Group, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Vertiv Holdings Co vs Willdan Group, Inc.
WLDN leads
WLDN leads by 17 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Risk Resilience. Wall Street currently favors VRT on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support WLDN.
Vertiv Holdings Co
Willdan Group, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors WLDN over VRT, 64 versus 47 as of Sep 6, 2026. WLDN's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and risk resilience, while VRT holds the stronger quality profile. WLDN also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors VRT. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor WLDN today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. WLDN lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 17 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Vertiv Holdings Co and Willdan Group, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price-return comparison using available daily close history.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000
Based on available close-price history. Distribution reinvestment is not added unless already reflected in the source series.
Compare VRT and WLDN against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Value30%25 vs 66WLDN +41
- Risk Resilience15%27 vs 59WLDN +32
- Quality30%77 vs 64VRT +13
- Momentum25%50 vs 63WLDN +13
3 of 6 evidence groups favor WLDN. WLDN’s edge is concentrated in value and risk resilience; VRT keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-05, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-04.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
WLDN's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — VRT and WLDN both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
WLDN (Willdan Group, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and risk resilience.
VRT (Vertiv Holdings Co): the counter-case, on quality, technicals, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 49.2% against 29.7%.
The AIQ Score and Wall Street therefore point in different directions on this pair.
Which one fits your objective
The same two names rank differently depending on what you are optimizing for. All six reads are shown at once — none of them is hidden behind a toggle.
Balanced
WLDNWLDN on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
WLDNWLDN on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
WLDNWLDN on the peer-relative Value factor, by 41 points.
Momentum
WLDNWLDN on the Momentum factor, by 13 points.
Lower downside
WLDNWLDN on Risk Resilience, by 32 points.
Analyst upside
VRTVRT on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors WLDN, analyst targets favor VRT. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | VRT | WLDN | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +32.5% | +28.2% | VRT has more room |
| Target dispersion | +48.4% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 16 | 1 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
The two are measuring different things. The AIQ Score reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; analyst targets price forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something already priced in — it is worth resolving before acting on either.
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor WLDN. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | WLDN | 47 vs 64 |
| Fundamentals | Even | revenue growth 23.6% vs 48.9%; EPS growth 26.5% vs 179.3%; TTM ROE 42.1% vs 20.9%; gross margin 37.5% vs 37.8%; operating margin 19.1% vs 7.1% |
| Valuation | WLDN | Value 25 vs 66 |
| Technicals | VRT | Price vs 50-day -0.8% vs 8.7%; vs 200-day 9% vs -7.5% |
| Risk Resilience | WLDN | Risk Resilience 27 vs 59 |
| Analyst expectations | VRT | Target upside 32.5% vs 28.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of VRT and WLDN and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 17 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on WLDN.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5WLDN lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 17 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- WLDN +17
- 47 vs 64
- 7 sessions ago
- WLDN +20
- 44 vs 64
- 30 sessions ago
- WLDN +15
- 51 vs 66
- 90 sessions ago
- WLDN +6
- 46 vs 52
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Jul 1 when WLDN moved ahead of VRT.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (9.83%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.01%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
0 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (17.48%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.65%)
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +4.35%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -1.48%, AIQ 0 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1VRT closes the Value gap — currently 41 points behind, the largest single contributor to WLDN's edge.
- 2VRT's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3WLDN starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Fundamentals
Split| Metric | VRT | WLDN |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 23.6% | 48.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 26.5% | 179.3% |
| Gross margin | 37.5% | 37.8% |
| Operating margin | 19.1% | 7.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 42.1% | 20.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.68 | 0.25 |
Performance
VRT leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | VRT | WLDN |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 9.1% | -2.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 3% | -0.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -6.6% | -11.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 16% | 3.4% |
| Year to date | 73.2% | -17.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 123.4% | -17.3% |
Technicals
VRT has the stronger structure| Metric | VRT | WLDN |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 44.1 | 60.2 |
| ADX (14) | 11.9 | 26.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.8% | 8.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 9% | -7.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 49.2% | 29.7% |
Risk
WLDN is the more resilient| Metric | VRT | WLDN |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.73 | 1.71 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.5 | -0.05 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.29 | -0.07 |
| Max drawdown | -40.7% | -50.4% |
| Current drawdown | -25.4% | -36.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 65.5% | 61.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.3% | -4.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, VRT or WLDN?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, WLDN is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 64 against VRT's 47. The edge comes from value and risk resilience. VRT is not without a case — it holds the better quality profile, which matters more if that is the objective you are optimizing for. This is a systematic score, not a recommendation: it ranks the two on the same evidence, it does not know your holding period or tax position.
Is VRT or WLDN the better buy right now?
WLDN carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 6, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor WLDN over VRT?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. WLDN leads Value by 41 points; WLDN leads Risk Resilience by 32 points; VRT leads Quality by 13 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, VRT or WLDN?
Analyst price targets imply +32.5% upside for VRT and +28.2% for WLDN, so the Street currently favors VRT. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors WLDN. The two are measuring different things: the model reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; the Street is pricing forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something the analysts have already priced — it is the single most useful row on this page to investigate. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, VRT or WLDN?
WLDN is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. WLDN on the peer-relative Value factor, by 41 points. The Value factor reads valuation relative to sector peers and to the company's own fundamental quality, so it is not the same as simply having the lower multiple.
Which has stronger growth, VRT or WLDN?
WLDN on combined revenue and EPS growth. Growth here is measured on reported revenue and earnings, not on forward estimates — it describes what the businesses have delivered, not what the Street expects next.
Which has stronger momentum, VRT or WLDN?
WLDN on the Momentum factor, by 13 points. Momentum carries 25% of the AIQ composite. It has documented persistence over three- to twelve-month horizons, which makes it a timing input rather than a reason to hold something indefinitely.
Which is riskier, VRT or WLDN?
WLDN is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. WLDN on Risk Resilience, by 32 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is VRT more profitable than WLDN?
VRT leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 37.5% vs 37.8%; operating margin 19.1% vs 7.1%; ttm roe 42.1% vs 20.9%.
Is WLDN's lead over VRT getting stronger or weaker?
WLDN lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 17 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-24 and 2026-09-05. The lead has changed hands 8 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-01, when WLDN moved ahead of VRT.
What would change the VRT vs WLDN verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: VRT closes the Value gap — currently 41 points behind, the largest single contributor to WLDN's edge; VRT's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; WLDN starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about VRT and WLDN?
VRT: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. WLDN: 0 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral. The most decision-relevant rule on VRT is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On WLDN it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare VRT and WLDN with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.